Public Bill Committee

[Ann Winterton in the Chair]

Clause 10

Planning: general

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 11, in clause 10, page 7, line 7, at end insert—
‘(c) the development falls within the limits of deviation for the scheduled works.’.—[Stephen Hammond.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Tom Harris: As I predicted, inspiration has descended, and I wonder if I might elucidate and expand on the points that I was trying to make in response to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. It may help if I explain what clause 10 does. In simple terms, it grants planning permission for two different categories of work. The scheduled works listed in schedule 1 have to be built within their respective limits of deviation. As long as other non-scheduled works fall within the scope of the various environmental assessments accompanying the Bill, they can be built anywhere within the limit of deviation or the limit of land to be acquired or used. In addition, safeguarding works to protect buildings can be constructed outside these limits, but within a specified distance of the works in relation to which the protection is provided.
The Bill plans show both the limit of deviation and the LLAU and together they are commonly known as the Bill limits, so the geographical extent of the works and the planning permission granted by the Bill is known. For example, the main railway and running tunnels are scheduled works, as are all the new stations to be built in the central section. Planning permission for those works is therefore granted within their limits of deviation, but some works are not scheduled works and so get planning permission only if they have been environmentally assessed. These include ancillary works such as station alterations within the LLAU or protective works to buildings outside the Bill limits. The proposed amendment would remove planning permission for that. I hope that that clarifies the position.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened carefully to the Minister. Certainly the last few points clarify his comment about stations this morning which was of some concern. I am still not clear why he feels that the amendment is not relevant. It inserts the phrase:
“the development falls within the limits of deviation for the scheduled works”.
Is he saying that that is already covered by the clause as it stands?

Tom Harris: Perhaps the confusion can be explained by the fact that we are talking about two separate things. The limit of deviation is, in general, a narrower pathway than the LLAU and will essentially be where the railway itself must be built. By simply referring to the “limits of deviation”, the amendment does not take account of what is currently provided for in the Bill, which is the limit of land to be acquired or used. Although taking the same path and direction as the limits of deviation, the LLAU is significantly wider to accommodate the extra work that has to be done outside the construction of the railway. I hope that that clarifies matters.

Stephen Hammond: I think that something has been lost in the gap between sittings. One of the things that we have been testing all morning is the limits outside the limits of deviation for which acquisition purposes are necessary. I am thinking about this carefully. I will not press this amendment, but I intend to read the Minister’s comments very carefully.

Tom Harris: Having discussed with officials the amendment and more general technical aspects of the Bill, I wish to take this opportunity to offer the hon. Member for Wimbledon—indeed any member of the Committee who wants them—meetings subsequent to our proceedings in Committee on some of the more technical aspects of the Bill that we might not be able to cover extensively. That is not to say that they cannot be returned to on Report, but it is an open offer to any member with concerns to sit down with the Crossrail team and Cross London Rail Links and discuss issues that we may not be able to resolve in Committee but on which they do not want to press amendments. It is an offer to be as open and helpful as we can.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful for that offer from the Minister. I had intended to divide the Committee on the amendment but, having listened to what he said and to his offer, which it may well be appropriate for myself or other members of the Committee to take up, I shall not. However, I give notice that I may wish to return to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7

Planning conditions

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in schedule 7, page 137, line 14, leave out ‘every relevant local authority which’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 31, in schedule 7, page 137, line 15, at beginning insert ‘every relevant local authority which’.
No. 32, in schedule 7, page 137, line 19, at beginning insert
‘every relevant local authority which’.
No. 33, in schedule 7, page 137, line 19, at end insert—
‘(c) all such relevant persons or bodies as may be affected by making such an order.’.

Stephen Hammond: The amendments would make small but significant changes to the wording of paragraph 1 of the schedule, and I think that they are the best way to proceed. The Committee will see that, taken together, they would add an additional body of people to be specified by the Secretary of State to receive consultation, as per the provisions of the schedule.
Paragraph 1 requires the Secretary of State to specify every local authority that either has given him satisfactory undertakings on the handling of planning matters or
“has not subsequently been released from its undertakings.”
In the name of prudence and equitable treatment, it makes sense to add the words
“all such relevant persons or bodies as may be affected by making such an order”
to the list for specification.

Tom Harris: This part of the Bill relates to the process by which the Secretary of State will specify which local authorities have agreed to become qualifying authorities under the Bill. A qualifying authority will be a local planning authority from which the Crossrail-nominated undertaker will seek various consents, and which has given undertakings to the Secretary of State on the handling of planning matters under the schedule. That is aimed to ensure that the process of obtaining consents does not unduly hinder the construction of Crossrail.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendments would require the Secretary of State to specify not only which local authorities have agreed to be qualifying authorities but all the bodies and individuals who might be affected by a specification order. If “relevant bodies or persons” in amendment No. 33 simply means those who are statutory consultees, I do not see the point of the amendment, as those consultees are already specified under part 4 of the schedule.
The amendment would also place a potentially large burden on the Secretary of State and could lead to lengthy argument about whether the list of affected parties is accurate. Even if such a list could be produced, I am genuinely unclear about what criteria the hon. Gentleman suggests we should use to assess relevance. It is unclear what the benefits of the provision would be, so I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I am, as you might guess, Lady Winterton, not particularly concerned about whether the amendments might place an extra burden on the Secretary of State. I am rather more concerned that the body of people consulted be correct and appropriate. I would have thought that both in other parts of the Bill and in precedent, there is a well-defined list of relevant people; surely they are those who are potentially affected. That definition of relevance should not necessarily be a problem to the Secretary of State. I have listened to the Minister’s arguments and I take on board his point that one of the amendments is already covered. Given, therefore, that some of those whom I wish to consulted are consultees already, and with his assurance that the Secretary of State will continue to conduct as wide a consultation as possible, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in schedule 7, page 148, line 5, leave out ‘6’ and insert ‘12’.
I shall not dwell too long on my thinking behind this small amendment, as it should be fairly obvious from the wording. Under the provisions of the schedule, the nominated undertaker is required to restore any sites used in relation to the construction of Crossrail. If such an arrangement is not reached within six months of the completion of scheduled works, the Government may impose an agreement. Clearly that process would be benefited if the time period was extended. It is not unusual in all sorts of building works for agreements to take longer than six months. Indeed, I am a governor of a school that is now talking to builders about an agreement and finally signing off some two years after. On works as large and exceptional as those on Crossrail, therefore, to impose such a tight deadline of six months would be inappropriate.
The amendment would reflect that and increase the chances of an agreement being reached by parties involved, as opposed to having one imposed on them from above. It seems to be especially important that parties be given sufficient time to plan the future use of the land, if it is unknown when the construction phase of Crossrail will officially come to an end. Imposing such a tight time limit is inappropriate. Widening it would provide flexibility and ensure that a vast number of parties can come to an agreement without the Government imposing one.

Tom Brake: I seek clarity on the possible impact of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. Would local residents not find that it takes longer to ensure that a site close to them is put back into a reasonable condition?

Stephen Hammond: Clearly, one effect of my amendment might be that it would take longer to restore land to its original state. However, local residents might be more pleased that it is returned to its original state, even if that takes an extra six months, than if it is returned to a state that is not fit for purpose, because of having to comply with a shorter time scale. Given the scale of the Crossrail construction—it is likely to take about seven years—an extra six months for restoring land to an agreed level would be a useful and flexible arrangement for the constructors of Crossrail and for those from whom they have taken land.

Tom Harris: The motivation behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is perfectly fair and understandable, but one of its weaknesses was ably illustrated by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I hope that I can, in a spirit of co-operation, persuade the hon. Member for Wimbledon that the amendment would not have the effect that he hopes for.
Schedule 7 relates to the planning conditions attached to the deemed planning permission granted under clause 10(1) for works authorised by the Bill. One condition is the requirement for land that has been used for construction purposes but does not form part of the permanent works to be restored in accordance with a scheme agreed between the local planning authority and the nominated undertaker.
Paragraph 11(3) of schedule 7 provides that, if a restoration scheme is not agreed within six months of the completion of the construction works for which the land was being used, the scheme would be determined by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport acting jointly,
“after consultation with the nominated undertaker and the local planning authority.”
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would double from six to 12 months the period before the restoration scheme is referred to the Secretaries of State for determination in the absence of agreement between the nominated undertaker and the local planning authority. That would have a number of effects: it would delay the final date by which the contractor could be assured that he would be able to finish on the construction site, which would extend the duration of contracts, adding to costs and potentially delaying the progress and completion of the construction phase of the project; and it would extend the period in which such work sites could be left unrestored and unused, to the detriment of the local environment and economy.
Six months is a reasonable period to give the local planning authority and the nominated undertaker to agree and, where that has not been achieved, it is right that the matter should be referred to the Secretaries of State for determination. Although it is conceivable that local authorities would desire more time to agree a restoration scheme, it is equally likely that both they and local communities would object to work sites remaining unused for longer than necessary. I should add that the proposal was contained in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. I cannot support the amendment.

Mark Field: I can see what the Minister is getting at. The fear of Conservative Members, as ably advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, is that the provision might put an additional burden to rush through within the first six months on landowners and local authorities, which are already very stretched in relation to planning and other regulatory and enforcement matters. The desirable situation, which we would hope for, particularly in central London, given the value of land, would be that remedial work was done on the land within a few weeks, by agreement between a local authority and the land’s owner. However, the six-month limit may be passed and, if that happened, it would be wrong for the power to go effectively straight into the hands of the Secretary of State. For that reason, we want an element of protection to allow agreement to be reached between people on the ground who know what is going on—the local authority and the landowner—rather than triggering in 180 days the taking of the decision straight to the Secretary of State. We thought pragmatically that 12 months would be a more desirable time limit.
It is in no one’s interest to have ongoing building sites——bomb sites——in any of our towns and cities after work has taken place. Equally, one has to appreciate that this may not be a first priority for landowners, particularly for those who have seen some of their land out of commission for some years while work has been going on. It would be undesirable, after a six-month period, for the Secretary of State to determine how and when work is undertaken. Obviously, a much better solution all round would be a sense of agreement. That is why 12 months, in this context, is sensible.
For practical purposes, we hope that the great majority of such sites will already have been developed and that there will be no environmental or other degradation ongoing. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment, because 12 months would be a pragmatic solution that ensures that landowners who are put to great inconvenience by Crossrail do not find that they have yet another problem to sort out and do not have to deal with enforcement action put upon them by a Secretary of State for waiting just a few days beyond a six-month period.

Tom Harris: The essence of this debate is that we have actually agreed on what we want; the Committee is united on that. The disagreement is on how we achieve it and on the practical measures that should be put in place to get there.
Let me repeat to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster what I said earlier: the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Transport will take their decision after extensive consultation with the nominated undertaker and the local planning authority, and hence there will indeed be an element of consultation. I respect the points that he has made, but we all want the easiest solution, and there is precedent from previous hybrid Bills—precedent that worked well. I understand the intention of the amendment, but I stick to my original position, and I do not support the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened carefully to the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster made a very able contribution that set out the thrust of what the Opposition want from an increase in the available time from three to 12 months. I am struck by what the Minister just said about how, after six months, the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Transport will get together and consult. It might well be that that will take rather longer than if my suggestion of six months had been adopted in the first place. I am therefore unpersuaded that a top-down imposition will necessarily be faster than the proposal in the amendment, so I shall test the will of the Committee on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in schedule 7, page 161, line 22, at end insert:
‘and any such other conservation body that might be expected to have a particular interest in the site as it relates to their subject of conservation.’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 36, in schedule 7, page 161, line 23, at end insert:
‘and any such other conservation body that might be expected to have a particular interest in the site as it relates to their subject of conservation.’.

Stephen Hammond: As has already been said, the Minister is a very fair man and I am sure that at some stage today he will find one of my excellent amendments both tempting and irresistible. The amendments in this group would insert identical wording after the words “Natural England”, so although tightly drafted they would add flexibility. They do not mean that any conservation body would be able to wade into a site and say that it might have an interest.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds held a reception for Members of Parliament last week, at which representatives talked about the number of inland projects that they are working on, and a number of conservation bodies and the process would benefit if the consultation process were extended when it came to conservation matters in a particular area. Natural England is certainly an appropriate body, but it is not the only one. There are a number of others and, to my mind, the RSPB is an obvious consultee. I would like to know whether the Minister might not be persuaded to look at the amendment and accept that the consultation and, indeed, the conservation process would benefit from not being restricted to just one body.

Brian Binley: My concern about the restrictions within the clause relates to local conservation areas. It seems that the Government’s thrust is to attempt to shove the opportunity to be involved in decision making down the decision-making chain and certainly to involve local communities
In my part of the world, local conservation bodies play a very important role in conservation at that important local level; I cannot speak with such confidence for London. The amendment would allow such bodies to be involved in the process, whereas, as the Bill stands, they are excluded from it. Knowing the Minister and how fair-minded he is, I am sure that he would want such local involvement, and I hope that he is able to tell us that that is the case.

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Lady Winterton. I am very tempted by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. However, I will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply to see whether it is, in fact, already covered. I assume that conservation groups have certain rights to access the site.

Mark Field: I very much agree with what my hon. Friends have said. I believe that there is a small danger in giving statutory authority only to certain bodies; for example, English Heritage has statutory authority in relation to a range of different planning matters for listed buildings. As set out in the schedule, there is a risk that large national bodies, such as Natural England and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, will perhaps take the view that they will fight only on a limited number of grounds, although the risk is probably far less in my constituency, which, of course, contains many well known historic buildings, than it might be on other parts of the Crossrail route. I understand that point of view; such bodies will want to make a precedent of two or three sites rather than the deserving cases that might exist at half a dozen or so sites on the particular route.
Across the political divide in Parliament, we all subscribe to the notion of localism—the idea that local people have a strong case that should be listened to. That applies particularly in London and the south-east, which is a very cosmopolitan and globalised part of the world, and everyone regards London as a big, world city. There is also a great passion about the villages that make up London; not just the historical part of central London, but well beyond that. It would be regrettable if we did not give some regard to those local bodies.
I fear that if we simply say, “Natural England have authority here”, it will, perhaps inevitably, take the view that it wants to fight on a limited number of grounds, for cost reasons, and, probably more importantly, in order to maximise the case that it is making without being totally aware of some of the local considerations.
For example, the south-east Bayswater residents association has both a planning and a conservation sub-committee. My constituency is also strongly affected by these proposals in north Mayfair. There is a conservation sub-committee of the St. James and Mayfair residents association, and it will be regrettable if they do not have some input on the matters that are statutorily protected by the schedule. I hope that the Minister will consider the proposals.
I think that all hon. Members agree that we need to have the input of bodies that have a passion for conservation at their heart. Because many of those bodies have input from locally involved individuals, they are on top of the very specific issues that some of the national bodies that are protected within schedule 7 will perhaps not fully appreciate.
I do not think that there is much that different parties disagree about on this issue. We know what we are trying to achieve. We do not want this to be a nimby charter or for things to be held up by very small local bodies delaying matters. However, it would be worth while for those that have a specific interest in conservation to have their interests protected in schedule 7.

Tom Harris: The hon. Member for Wimbledon seems to be using the strategy of trying to make me feel guilty about my recurrent refusals to accept his amendments. I have to tell him that that strategy is doomed to failure on this occasion. Similarly, the hon. Member for Northampton, South seems to be trying to use flattery to the same end. He will find his efforts achieving similar success.
I think that all hon. Members are, once again, on the same side of the argument, but with a disagreement about how to get there. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 would extend the duty of local planning authorities to consult where a planning request relates to conservation. The Bill requires authorities to consult Natural England on such matters. The amendments would extend the duty to include any other conservation bodies that might have an interest in the site to which the consent relates. I will say a little about that phraseology later.
Part 4 of the schedule sets out the bodies that must be consulted by local authorities and the time scale for doing that and receiving responses. The bodies specified are those that have statutory duties to consider the matters in question. Those bodies have been consulted extensively as the project has been developed and are represented on a statutory agencies forum that reports directly to the high-level forum that I chair. We believe that that is the right approach. It is open to any local authority to consult and take comments from any body that it feels is appropriate. However, to extend the duty to consult in part 4 of the schedule in such an uncertain way could render the consultation unworkable.

Tom Brake: Would it not be entirely appropriate for the statutory bodies to conduct their own consultation among other conservation groups, for instance?

Tom Harris: That seems to me an eminently sensible position to take, but it would not be prescribed in the Bill.
In response to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who warned against extending the process and holding it up with too many consultees, my concern about the wording of the amendment is that it states,
“any such other conservation body that might be expected to have a particular interest”.
Most hon. Members have served on Committees like this a number of times and we all know how important it is to be specific in legal terms. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, but he looks far too decent for that. It seems to me that almost any body, whether or not it has a constitution and even if it is a very informal coalition of different people, would be entitled to be consulted statutorily under the amendment. For instance—I do not think that such a group exists—“East End Against Crossrail” might be a very informal coalition of various groupings, some political and some not, and it would be entitled to be consulted. If it were not, there will always be the prospect of judicial review. To my mind, that is the weakness of an amendment that, with all respect, is phrased in a very ambiguous and open-ended manner. That might be a gift to the lawyers, for whom I have such a high regard.
Given those comments, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will see that my reservations are genuine and that the amendments do not fit in with what we are trying to achieve. I hope that he will beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened to what the Minister has said and, as I am not a member of that profession for which he has such high regard, I am perfectly able to accept that in legal terms my phraseology might not achieve exactly the intent that I had sought. I do not share his pessimism, because we have specified that the body would have to have a particular interest in the site as it relates to conservation, and I would have thought that that would certainly rule out the nebulous coalitions that might conjoin simply for the purpose of derailing the whole thing.
I think that this would have been a sensible amendment because there are bodies that are likely to be missed. However because he has reservations about the way in which it is drafted, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 11

Permitted development: time limit

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 11, page 8, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The clause does exactly what it says on the tin—to use the vernacular. Subsection (1) puts a time limit of 10 years on the provisions for deemed planning permission, which strikes me as quite generous. Given the exhaustive examination of the Crossrail route that has already been made by our friends incarcerated here, 10 years ought to be ample time in which to grant the appropriate permissions to begin the work. Therefore, what is the point of that time limit if, by virtue of subsections (2) and (3), the Secretary of State can ignore it? Those subsections allow the Secretary of State to extend the time limit that has already been imposed of any period he chooses.
Will the Minister enlighten us as to the circumstances in which he anticipates that it would take more than 10 years from the time that the Bill receives Royal Assent before the deemed planning permission can result in development? In 10 years, I would expect the construction of Crossrail to be well under way. If it is still in its planning stage at that time, not only will every member of the Committee and Member of the House be deeply disappointed, but everyone in London will be also.

Tom Harris: I begin by clarifying for the elimination of all doubt that I agree with the hon. Gentleman and also expect the construction of Crossrail to be well under way in 10 years time. I do not want the Committee to be in any doubt about the Government’s intention in that regard. Last month, the Prime Minister made an announcement about Crossrail and said that we expect major works to start in 2010 and for the first services to be running in 2017. The Government and the Mayor, as joint sponsors of Crossrail, are confident that the outlined programme for construction is realistic. On that basis, we expect all scheduled works to have begun within the 10-year period provided for in subsection (1).
This is a massive project, however, and its scale and complexity are such that we believe it is prudent for Parliament to allow the flexibility that subsections (2) and (3) provide, so that the project can be completed whatever perturbations may occur—I guess it is the word “perturbations” for which the hon. Gentleman wants a definition. We cannot predict why delays might occur, but I am sure that hon. Members will join me in hoping that they do not happen.
Crossrail, as with any large project, is susceptible to external factors that might affect the programme. We believe that the flexibility to extend the period of deemed planning permission is appropriate, and I assure the Committee that the ability to extend the period of deemed planning permission that the Bill grants is well precedented. I shall offer a prize to the first Member who can tell me where that precedent emerges—the 1996 Act. It should be remembered that during the construction of the channel tunnel rail link, an extension of the 10-year planning permission was not required and we do not expect it to be required on this occasion.

Tom Brake: What further thoughts has the Minister had, as he seeks this extension, about the impact of planning blight, which will now potentially extend over a much longer period?

Tom Harris: May I once again clarify that we do not expect an extension to the 10-year period? The clause will allow the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to secure an extension, but we do not intend or expect to extend the 10-year limit. The hon. Gentleman is right about planning blight and the other complications that would arise in those circumstances, which is one reason why the Government are determined that construction will begin as planned in 2010. Further, any extension of deemed planning permission would be moved by an order subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.

Brian Binley: I offer my sincere apologies to the Minister. I am not a lawyer, thank God, being surrounded by them as I am, but will he explain in simple, non-legal terms the circumstances in which the Secretary of State at the time might need to overrule on this particular matter?

Tom Harris: I do not want to be overly dramatic about the circumstances that might lead at some point to a major delay in Crossrail. We can all speculate about the effects, for example, of a terrorist attack either in central London or at the Crossrail construction site. I shall be frank: I do not want to speculate about it. However, the process that has already taken up 21 months of Select Committee sittings, and the hybrid Bill process has already been carried over into two separate Parliaments and one general election, so do we want an amendment that would mean that we might conceivably—in unusual circumstances—be forced to go through the whole process all over again.
The people who framed the 1996 Act knew what they were doing, and I reaffirm what I have already said to the Committee: the provision was included in the 1996 Act for the reasons that I have already outlined and the powers were not used. I do not expect them to be used now. Given the amount of work that has already gone into this Bill, I hope that the Committee will understand why the clause, as a safety net, should remain in the Bill.

Mark Field: I understand why the Minister wants such a belt-and-braces provision. There are, however, great distinctions between the 1996 Act and the Bill. In reality, the channel tunnel was a matter of international prestige. For this Government—for any Administration in this country—to have gone back on that deal would have been a disaster internationally, given the project’s importance. The fear that many of my constituents have is about planning blight, which I addressed with regard to earlier clauses this morning. By extending in a relatively unusual if not entirely unprecedented way from five to 10 years the normal planning limit, the provision raises a question about the robustness of the Crossrail financial package. I appreciate that we will not be able to discuss that issue to any great extent until almost the final clause, but there are great concerns about a package that was cobbled together in the first week of October to everyone’s joy, but, we all felt, with an eye to a general election campaign. I worry that there will be extensive planning blight if we extend beyond the five years or even the three years that the Minister mentioned earlier.
I worry about the time we have spent considering these matters in Parliament. I was not a member of the Select Committee, but a number of hon. Members have spent more than 18 months on them. We have gone through the legislative process, or we will have done within a few months, and we would be in the worst of all worlds if that financial package was not seen to be robust.
There is undoubtedly slightly less clement economic weather ahead, and there is also a sense in which the project is considered one of great international prestige. We make a big case for the importance of international trade and the significance of Crossrail well beyond London and the south-east. Ministers make that case when they are trying to convince their Scottish and northern English brethren of the importance of the project, but it is all too easy to see how the rug might be pulled away.
Even for a large-scale construction project such as this, an extension from five years to 10 is an unusual provision. I worry that it will give rise ever more to the view that there is get-out option come year 8 or 9, that suddenly the funding will not be put together and that the project will be put on the back burner for decades to come. That is the worst of all scenarios for my constituents and others who are affected, simply because they will suffer blight. That blight could be present for many years to come.
Most of my constituents are concerned about the noise and the disruption. As the Minister knows, on all occasions I have tried to make the case for the importance of Crossrail. A number of my constituents in parts of central London would prefer it if I came out against Crossrail, but I am in favour—provided that we can get on and get it done.
At the end of the process, we will have a tremendous new asset not just for central London, but for the country as a whole. The worst of all worlds for my constituents would be to have such blight hanging over their properties and their lives for many years to come. The Minister’s proposal to extend from the normal five years to 10 raises many questions.

Peter Soulsby: I rise to support the Minister’s view. As we are all well aware, this is an enormously complex project with innumerable elements. Some of those elements will be much more straightforward to deliver than others, and some are rather more fundamental to the project than others. As those complex elements are brought together to produce the whole, some might be more difficult to deliver in the time frame than might seem apparent at the outset.
I share the Minister’s hope and expectation that the project will be safely delivered within the 10-year period. I am sure that we all share that hope, but I see the provision not as a get-out clause, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster described it, but as a sensible fall-back position should there be unexpected difficulties in delivering some elements. We all hope that it will never need to be used, but it is wise to have it.
We should remember that the provision is being included in such a way as to enable Parliament to continue to scrutinise. Parliamentary approval will be required for any extension beyond the 10-year period. Given the complexity of the project, the uncertainty of delivering it all within the 10-year time frame and the scrutiny that would be necessary should the power be exercised, we should support the clause as it stands.

Tom Brake: I rise to echo the concerns that have been expressed from this side of the Committee. The clause creates a bit of wriggle room and takes the pressure off. With a project such as this, we need to keep the pressure on and the momentum going. There is here the potential to delay matters. If the Government roll out an ID cards programme and the costs mushroom dramatically beyond those anticipated, they would have the flexibility to use this measure as a means of slowing down expenditure on the Crossrail project to pay for those cost overruns. I need reassurance from the Minister, therefore, that there is no potential to delay the project.

Jeremy Wright: Welcome to the Chair, Lady Winterton.
I declare an interest in that I am a lawyer, which means that I shall keep very quiet in the Committee, although there is one point on which I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification. Hon. Members who have spoken in this portion of our discussions have assumed that the works in question must be completed in a 10-year period. The Minister has said that there are many unforeseeable eventualities that might affect the progress of a particular piece of work. However, it is also important to bear it in mind that clause 11(1) says that the development consisting of scheduled work must begin
“not later than the end of 10 years”.
Any delays in a development, therefore, will not be affected by the removal of subsections (2) and (3).

Tom Harris: Before I address the serious concerns mentioned by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington on managing to include ID cards in a Crossrail debate.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made his case well in relation to potential blight. He has raised his concerns on that subject on a number of occasions, I know. Let me put it this way: Crossrail must happen, and it will—whether under this scheme or not. It is not an optional extra for the city of London. It must be built, and most of us accept that.
In the extremely hypothetical circumstance of a delay that forced the loss of the planning permission conferred by the Bill, a future Government would in any case have to repeat the process, start from scratch and go through the whole hybrid Bill process so as to get to where we are now, and start building. The hon. Member for Wimbledon is suggesting, I think, that, if there were a delay in starting construction and if power did not exist to extend permission, Crossrail would not be built and that those of his constituents who are in danger of blight could carry on regardless and would be at no risk of blight in future. That cannot be the case, because Crossrail has to happen. If it does not happen now, a future Government will have to build it. In common with all members of the Committee, I want Crossrail to be built as soon as possible.

Mark Field: I shall not draw a direct comparison, but let me make the observation that at various times there have been proposals for different tube lines. Anyone who lives in parts of north London around Muswell Hill or Cranleigh Gardens will have seen maps from the late 1930s indicating possible extensions of the Northern line that would have covered those districts. It is perhaps to their own good that they remained outside the tube network.
The notion that Crossrail has to be built is a little wide of the mark. It has been talked about since as early as 1948, and proposals for it have existed for a considerable time. Conservative Members are simply concerned about financial robustness. If the Minister is right that work will begin in the next three years, that will probably be under the current Administration, but if they fail in that regard, I do not see why my constituents or constituents elsewhere in London and the south-east should suffer potential blight.

Tom Harris: All I can do is repeat the assurances that have been given by the Prime Minister and by others in government on the Government’s commitment to going ahead with the stated schedule of works, which we have already made public. We have learned lessons from the highly successful channel tunnel rail link and applied them to the Crossrail proposals, not least in handing the task of delivery to an autonomous delivery agent—Cross London Rail Links Ltd—that can recruit the people it needs with the right “megaproject” experience and expertise. I am confident that the project will come in on time and on budget, and will begin in 2010 as we have said. The project costs include a carefully calculated contingency reserve and it has been tested in a full quantified risk analysis.
I do not want the Committee to receive any impression other than that the Government are committed to Crossrail construction beginning in 2010. The measure in the Bill is a standard measure that must be applied to an infrastructure project of this size. I predict that this measure will be applied to any future infrastructure project of such a size when a hybrid Bill is involved.
I do not want anyone to glean from the comments that have been made, either by me or by any other Committee member, that the Government are anything other than fully committed to the project timetable that we have already outlined. In that context, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I do not think that any Opposition Member has any doubt that the Government wish to build Crossrail. However, in this short debate, we have heard two quite telling comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster—one about blight and one about finance—and a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who mentioned exactly why my amendment is so relevant.
The clause is about not Crossrail being completed, but its being started. Unfortunately, the Minister is in the world of the unknown unknowns and the problem is that he cannot tell us what one of those unknowns might be.

Tom Harris: Because it is not known.

Stephen Hammond: This is a problem for the Minister and the fatal flaw in his argument. We are seeking reassurance about what event he might want the exceptional power for and, because he cannot give us that reassurance—he has been unable to do so—I would like to test the will of the Committee on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Power to disapply section 10(1)

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I have a short contribution to make. I invite the Minister to tell the Committee what is the purpose of the clause. The explanatory notes say that it
“allows the Secretary of State to switch off the deemed planning permission granted by the Bill in respect of future Crossrail works, should he decide to do so”.
The preceding clauses have given the Government the power to obtain deemed planning permission to build the network, presumably to facilitate and speed up the construction process. However, under clause 13, we see that they do not want that power and are saying that the process can go down the normal planning permission road.
Why does the Secretary of State want special powers in relation to the deemed planning permission process at one stage and, in respect of clause 13, under what circumstances is that not necessary? I find the clause slightly confusing in that regard and I look forward to the Minister elucidating.

Tom Harris: The clause allows the Secretary of State, by means of an order, to disapply the deemed planning permission granted by clause 10(1) in respect of maintaining or altering any Crossrail work from the date specified in the order. That is most likely to be used in the case of the electrification and signalling work done on sections of the existing railway network. It will ensure that a single planning regime covers works in relation to existing track after the Crossrail construction phase has been completed. In the event of a disapplication, any such development would be subject to the normal provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 applying to development authorised by a local Act.

Stephen Hammond: I am interested that the Minister has chosen to mention electricity. When we touched on that point this morning, he said that he required special powers to deal with electricity, yet now, when discussing other provisions relating to it, he says that he can use normal powers.

Tom Harris: I am not entirely sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic on that point. Does he want to elucidate?

Stephen Hammond: This morning we looked at the Electricity Act 1989 and the normal consent regime that applied. I was told that that regime clearly was not appropriate and that a special consent regime needed to apply. I cannot understand why a special consent regime is needed to deal with the building and moving of electricity infrastructure, but not a special planning regime.

Tom Harris: I will tell the hon. Gentleman shortly.

Stephen Hammond: Inspiration has arrived.

Tom Harris: Yes, inspiration has arrived from on high. The clause is about works to maintain or alter the existing infrastructure. It is not about creating new infrastructure, which is why there is a different planning regime. I hope that that makes sense to the hon. Gentleman. The clause allows the planning regime to change and then to revert back to normal—as it was before the construction took place.

Stephen Hammond: I was hoping that the answer would make sense to me. The Minister says that the clause relates to the alteration of existing infrastructure rather than to new infrastructure, but we are taking deemed planning permission to do all sorts of alterations to existing infrastructure. Will he clarify what infrastructure already in existence he wishes to alter and why? Why, in another case, does he want existing infrastructure that needs to be altered to be dealt with under a different planning regime?

Tom Harris: That might be something that I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman about. As I said earlier, the clause allows the Secretary of State, by means of an order, to disapply the deemed planning permission granted under clause 10(1) in respect of maintaining or altering any Crossrail work from the date specified in the order. In that respect, I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s questions, but I might have to clarify these issues at a later date.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Extension of permitted development rights

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: For the purposes of clarification, will the Minister assure me that clauses 15, 16 and 17 merely bring into effect schedules 8, 9 and 10, and that they have already been extensively covered by the Select Committee and are not really within the jurisdiction of this Public Bill Committee?

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is right that these provisions have been covered by the Select Committee. However, since they are in the Bill, it is within the jurisdiction of the Committee to amend and debate them.

Stephen Hammond: I thank the Minister for that reply. Within the schedules, I understood that we were not able to touch the routes or the highways, but that we might be able to change some parts of the schedules relating to methods. I was seeking clarification that my understanding was correct.

Tom Harris: That is a procedural matter that you may wish to clarify with the Clerks, Lady Winterton, but it is not a matter on which I can rule.

Ann Winterton: For the Committee’s information, an amendment that seeks to re-hybridise the Bill falls outside the scope of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 18

Power to deal with trees on neighbouring land

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 18, page 12, line 7, at end add
‘, and is subject to the conditions set out in subsection (3)’.
Clauses 18 and 19 quite rightly deal with trees, because overhanging trees could delay the scheduled works, and it is understandable that they might need to be trimmed or removed so that they no longer obstruct the construction or operation of Crossrail. Clause 18 allows the owner of a tree to appeal against any such action and entitles them to receive compensation for loss or damage. One would be hard-pressed to disagree with the general provisions. The amendment is not designed to revise that purpose, or the general principle behind it, but to make the process slightly more watertight.
Subsection (4) enables the nominated undertaker to do the work himself, if the owner of the tree has not undertaken to do so within 28 days of being served a notice by the nominated undertaker. However, the clause would benefit if the words of the amendment were appended because there will undoubtedly be some cases in which the reason for the landowner’s inaction will be that he has objected to the proposed works in accordance with subsection (2). It may be that, within those 28 days, he has served a counter-notice and is therefore awaiting confirmation by a county court. When the 28-day deadline expires, he may still be waiting for that response. If that is the case, it will be prudent for the nominated undertaker to await the judgment of the county court before starting work on the affected tree. By making a reference to subsection (3) in subsection (4), we would ensure that the nominated undertaker would not start chopping off branches before he was sure that any appeal to the courts has been properly processed.

Tom Harris: I can see what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to achieve with the amendment, but I can tell him that the powers featured in subsection (4) are not what he assumes them to be. I will explain.
The clause deals with the removal or lopping of overhanging trees on adjacent land that is necessary for the Crossrail works to be constructed or maintained, and for their safe operation. The nominated undertaker can give notice and, if there is no objection, can undertake the works after 28 days, if the owner has not dealt with the trees himself. If a counter-notice is served within the 28-day period, the notice has no effect unless confirmed by a county court. That provision is very similar to that provided under the 1996 Act, which used a procedure for notices and counter-notices similar to that provided under the Telecommunications Act 1984. That Act gives the landowner the suitable protection that he can choose to lop or remove the trees himself, but if he disputes the need for lopping or removal, he can serve a counter-notice. In that case, no action can be taken, unless the county court confirms the notice.
If the intention behind the amendment is that the county court should confirm every notice, whether contested or not, I would argue that it would add no benefit. If a landowner has done nothing about a notice, it is highly likely that the county court consideration would be uncontested. It is unclear, therefore, what such consideration would achieve. However, it would create extra work, including for the courts, and might cause delay. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I initially thought that the Minister was saying that the serving of a counter-notice stopped the time limit on the notice. Was that what he was saying?

Tom Harris: If a counter-notice is served, no action can be taken until it is confirmed by a county court.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. If that is the procedure, my amendment is rendered unnecessary, and I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Control of construction sites: appeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: Clause 20 will effectively disapply the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which will mean that appeals are determined by not a magistrates court, but the Secretary of State, which is concerning. The Government are trying to enact legislation that allows them, or their nominated undertaker, to create a great deal of noise—I accept that sometimes that is unavoidable—in and around London. Under the 1974 Act, the Government can apply for prior consent for such a level of noise. Normally, such appeals would be heard by a magistrates court, but now the Government want to hear those appeals themselves. In legal terms, they would therefore be the defendant and judge. I invite the Minister to clarify the situation and explain how he will seek to remedy it. It is an extremely important matter.
This morning, we tackled briefly the possibility of noise due to the extension of boring and drilling downwards. However, we have only touched on noise. Clearly, noise blight could be a major result of the construction phase under the Bill. Whole communities might well be affected during the construction, and the 1974 Act seems to be more or less the only protection for a neighbourhood or community. It would seem invidious for appeals to be determined by the Secretary of State rather than through the normal channels. How on earth could a local community protect itself? Is the Minister saying that the Government should be above the law for the purposes of this Bill, and therefore—potentially—for the purposes of other Bills?

Peter Soulsby: May I reassure the hon. Member for Wimbledon that the question of noise during construction was repeatedly a matter of concern in petitions heard by the Select Committee? We spent a considerable amount of time listening to those concerns and were heartened to receive from the promoters and the Government a number of assurances about the way in which the construction would be undertaken. That enabled us to reassure those petitioners. Although I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making about the general provision, I hope that I can reassure him and the Committee that some of the specific problems anticipated by petitioners, residents and those in the neighbourhood of the construction sites were considered at an early stage and a number of remedial measures were put in place.

Lee Scott: There are laws in place relating to noise pollution from works. However, my constituency has the highest number of underground stations—a total of 14—and lot of work takes place outside normal hours and causes massive disturbance, and that is just the ongoing regular work. There will be much more work to be done during the construction stage of Crossrail, which is why this important issue needs to be addressed.

Brian Binley: May I confirm what my colleague the hon. Member for Leicester, South said about the concern raised by petitioners not only about noise, but about other pollution? Noise, vibration and dust were the major concerns. Indeed, we went through the code that has been adopted—at considerable length and to a considerable depth. The hon. Gentleman is right. We should be happy with the conditions built in to the code and the fact that the undertakers are aware of the need to act properly in this respect. However, there are sad occasions when things go wrong and we have seen examples of that in this place over the past week.
I am concerned about whether there is a fall-back position. Many of the petitioners felt that they had a fall-back position with regard to magistrates who knew their own locality. That was an important safeguard for them: if the code and the promises and all that was said to good effect did not materialise, they could appeal to local magistrates. Again, the “local” gave them comfort. I am concerned that we are removing local knowledge from the equation. I would like the Minister to reassure me and tell me exactly why he feels that that element should be removed or whether my concerns do not matter and are of no consequence. If that is so, I am happy; if not, I will not be happy at all.

Tom Harris: I will try my best to offer comfort to Opposition Members, although I am not sure whether I will be successful, given the concerns that they have raised. However, I believe that their concerns are unfounded. I am grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South in that regard.
May I use an increasingly over-used word, which is perhaps devalued currency, and say that the clause is precedented in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996? The purpose of the clause is to modify elements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, so that an appeal against a construction noise notice under section 60 of that Act, or a refusal or conditioning of a consent to construction arrangements under section 61, is determined by the Secretary of State instead of by a magistrates court.
The Crossrail scheme is a linear work of some 100 km in length, passing through the areas of many petty sessional divisions. Although magistrates courts are an appropriate forum for the resolution of disputes in relation to schemes and activities that have discrete local effects, using such courts as appellate bodies is not likely to secure the co-ordinated and unified approach to construction activities that is desirable for the effective management of a project the size of Crossrail.

Brian Binley: The point about which we are talking relates not to the code, but to the failure of the code. The code should be adjudged from a local perspective, because local conditions impact upon dust, noise and vibration. We were told that at great length. That is why, given that the conditions and the code are in place, I want an appeal, as a fall back scenario, to be interpreted from a local viewpoint, rather than from that of the Secretary of State, who has, as the Minister said, the broader view. It is for that exact reason that I want the local input.

Tom Harris: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but do not accept his assumption that the Secretary of State is somehow an inappropriate person to hear those appeals. As a member of the Select Committee, the hon. Gentleman will know that an awful lot of work has been done on agreeing the working hours for Crossrail works. That has been the subject of lengthy discussions with local authorities and, of course, the Select Committee.

Peter Soulsby: I wish to respond to the suggestion that local knowledge will somehow be lost by this process. I am sure that the Minister can confirm that the role of the local authority will be completely unaffected by the provision, and the local knowledge that the local authority undoubtedly has will still be an important part of the enforcement of the controls over this nuisance.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend is correct and, once again, shows deep knowledge of the subject at hand. The position agreed with local authorities is reflected in the construction code mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton, South, which forms part of the environmental minimum requirements, for which an undertaking has been given to the House.
I would like to clarify the fact that the Secretary of State will not necessarily be the Secretary of State for Transport. The hon. Member for Northampton, South has suggested that the Secretary of State for Transport might be in some kind of double bind, being both the appellant—the person creating the complaint in the first place—and the person hearing the appeal. It does not have to be the Secretary of State for Transport.

Stephen Hammond: If it does not have to be the Secretary of State for Transport, which Secretary of State does the Minister envisage it being? It would help a lot of people if that was specified in the Bill. Is he proposing that the appellate procedure be held by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government?

Tom Harris: In practice, it would not necessarily be the Secretary of State for Transport. Instead, an independent inspector is likely to be appointed with the authority of the Secretary of State. That is what happened with the 1996 Act. As the appeal in the case of the Thameslink box at Kings Cross has shown, there can be no presumption that the inspector will find in favour of the project. We know that the promoter lost that particular case.
I understand the general concern that the Secretary of State should not have those powers, but they have been invested in previous legislation and hybrid Bills because a strategic approach is needed. Of course, local knowledge is absolutely essential. However, that local knowledge will not be lost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South has already said. In a project of such importance and physical size, the appeals should be heard by someone with a strategic overview of the project, not by any number of local magistrates courts.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Proceedings in repect of statutory nuisance: defence

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: This debate gives us the chance to have another little chat about noise. The clause continues in much the same vein as clause 20, in the sense that it removes any accountability on behalf of the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker for excess noise pollution caused by the Crossrail project. We have just heard the Minister justify the rationale for the Secretary of State determining the issue, but towards the end of those remarks, the Minister said that on clauses 20 and 21, the Secretary of State may appoint an independent inspector. If that is the precedent of the 1996 Act, the Committee would be much more reassured if the Minister’s comment was in the Bill and the issue determined by an independent inspector whom the Secretary of State nominated. That would release the Secretary of State from the invidious position of being, potentially, the defendant and the judge, which would be quite important.
The Minister’s argument about separate numbers of magistrates courts all potentially doing different things is slightly odd, because the magistrates courts would test whether a noise level was above or below a level as specified by an Act, and although they might apply sanctions differently, their findings would be consistent. The Minister’s argument was therefore difficult to accept.
I hope that the Minister will have the chance to reflect on the possibility of an independent inspector being involved. According to the Environment Protection Act 1990, if a magistrates court decides that a nuisance is caused by noise or that such a nuisance is likely to recur, it may proceed to require the defendant to take appropriate action to abate that noise, and impose a fine. The clause does not quite make a mockery of, but it takes away from, that important legislation by making the perpetrator to the noise, if they are associated with Crossrail, not responsible under the 1990 Act. Clause 21 states that
“no order shall be made, and no fine shall be imposed...if the defendant shows that”
the noise was caused by works associated with Crossrail.
We have said all along in Committee today that Crossrail is a project of huge strategic importance that will require exceptional powers, but to the family living next door to the new Woolwich station or near any line being built, it will not matter whether the noise nuisance from the baby being disturbed at 3 o’clock in the morning is caused by the development of Crossrail or by some other construction project.
I have listened carefully and I am glad that the Select Committee felt that there were some reassurances, but I find it striking that that Committee expended so much effort in the past two years listening to the concerns of people affected by Crossrail and tried to reassure them, because the two clauses we are considering will not impose a penalty if such concerns about noise are brought forward. Will the Minister again consider carefully the fact that in clauses 20 and 21, the Secretary of State is put in the potentially invidious position of being both defendant and judge? That is not good legislation.

Tom Harris: The purpose of clause 21, precedented in the 1996 Act, is to provide a defence against proceedings brought by an individual alleging a noise nuisance under section 82 of the 1990 Act. The defence arises if the nuisance arises in connection with authorised activity, and where the relevant works are carried out in accordance with either a notice or a consent given under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
Such a notice or consent already forms a defence in any proceedings for failure to comply with a noise abatement notice issued by a local authority under section 80(1)(a) of the 1990 Act. The provision means that the nominated undertaker will be able to carry out his works—importantly, works approved by the local authority—with greater certainty. However, I recognise Opposition Members’ concerns. One requirement of the Crossrail construction code is that the nominated undertaker must obtain consent under section 61 of the 1974 Act with respect to the construction works that it is to carry out under the Bill. In view of that commitment, it is reasonable that the nominated undertaker should be able to carry out the works, as approved by the local authority, with the certainty that the clause will give—namely, that it will not then be subject to separate proceedings under section 82 of the 1990 Act.
Such separate proceedings could inhibit or delay necessary construction works for Crossrail that have previously been approved by the local authority as representing best practicable means for the minimisation of noise. There are other safeguards. The first is that, because of the Crossrail construction code commitments, concerned individuals have the assurance that their local authority will have scrutinised in detail the proposed construction methods in each case to check that best practice is being followed.
Secondly, individuals potentially affected by noise nuisance arising from the Crossrail works have already had the opportunity to petition the House. Indeed, a number have done so. Several of the undertakings and assurances given during the Select Committee process relate to the promoter’s strategy for controlling and mitigating noise impacts. Subject to the Bill completing its passage through the House, individuals will also have the opportunity to petition again in the other place.
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, the Secretary of State for Transport remains accountable to Parliament for the undertakings contained in the construction code. That is at it should be on mitigation and on noise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Licensing

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in clause 22, page 14, line 12, at end insert
‘with the exception of any trains used to transport construction material to sites being used in connection with the scheduled works.’.
We come to a series of clauses that look at railways matters. A number of them concern the obligations of the Office of Rail Regulation and the Secretary of State with regard to the railway assets. The Railways Act 1993 obliges the operators of railway assets to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State, or from the regulator with the consent of the Secretary of State, to operate such assets as train stations, networks or light maintenance depots. Under clause 7 of the 1993 Act, the Secretary of State may grant an exemption from that requirement to be authorised by licence provided that he has consulted with the regulator.
The clause provides that operators of Crossrail-related railway assets will need neither a licence nor a licence exemption during the Crossrail construction period, yet there is the possibility that trains will move construction material and personnel to sites. The Committee will want to understand why the additional power is necessary, given that the Secretary of State already has the power by virtue of the 1993 Act to grant exemptions to operators from the requirement to have a licence. It appears that the only difference being created here is the removal of the obligation from the Secretary of State to consult with the rail regulator before granting such an exemption. I look forward to the Minister’s clarification of whether that is the intent of the clause.
That is the general point relating to the motive behind the clause as a whole. My amendment is slightly more particular. It relates to construction materials being used in the building of Crossrail. If such materials and such personnel are to be transported by rail, I see no reason why the operators of the trains and the related infrastructure—the railway assets—should be excused from the need to have a licence validated by the ORR.
That licensing regime ensures that certain minimum standards are met in terms of efficiency, the environment and most particularly, safety. It is a key regulatory requirement and one that I would be wary of seeing sidestepped for any railway asset, particularly where construction workers may be involved. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance that those powers are necessary.

Tom Harris: I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no need for the amendment.
Clause 22 deals with the period between part of the Crossrail network becoming usable and its opening to fare-paying passengers. During that period, the newly created network may be operated for construction trains, and test trains will be run. The clause removes the need to obtain licences from the ORR to use the network and to run trains in that period. The licensing provisions of the 1993 Act are appropriate to the commercial operation of this, as any other railway, but add no value to developmental stages of a new railway.
The amendment would require the licensing of services carrying construction materials on newly constructed parts of the Crossrail network that have yet to be brought into commercial operation. However, if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about trains being used in the construction of Crossrail and also running on the existing national rail network without a licence, I can reassure him that the clause does not remove the requirement for a licence to be obtained in the usual manner in relation to that network.
The only construction trains that will be exempt from licensing for their entire journey are those contained within the newly constructed parts of the Crossrail network. There is no possible value in trying to apply a licensing regime designed for commercial operations to the running of construction trains within a construction site. I hope that that is enough information to reassure the hon. Gentleman and persuade him to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister’s opening remarks are certainly extremely useful in confirming that any construction trains being used on the national rail network will still require a licence. However, I am still concerned. I understand entirely that the licensing and regulatory regime that one would use for commercial operation is not appropriate to a construction operation, but, at the same time, are we saying that there is no regulatory or licensing regime being placed on the construction traffic at all? Safety implications must be addressed. Therefore, how can we be clear about the safety of construction workers being guaranteed?

Tom Harris: Although the trains will be running exclusively on newly built railway not open to commercial traffic at that time, and will not need to be licensed by the ORR, nevertheless, health and safety legislation will still apply in full force to the whole Crossrail construction site.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful for the Minister’s extra clarification, because it convinces me that I do not need to persuade my colleagues to support me in a Division on the measure. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Overriding duty of Office of Rail Regulation before Crossrail operational

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in clause 23, page 14, line 22, at end insert
‘and with regard to commercial freight requirements.’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 40, in clause 23, page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (5).

Stephen Hammond: The Committee will be well aware of the concerns within the rail freight industry about the Crossrail project. EWS, the largest commercial rail freight company in the country, has provided the most vocal representation from the industry in pronouncing concerns about the implication of the project for freight transport. Mr. Graham Smith, the planning director, said:
“Whilst appreciating the importance of improving passenger traffic in London, this must not be done at the expense of freight by rail.”
EWS also tendered a comprehensive submission to the Transport Committee last year, as I am sure the hon. Member for Leicester, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South are aware.
In essence, I agree with the Transport Committee’s conclusions on the matters raised by EWS—namely, that we all accept that the freight industry has been beset by a number of problems, not only in London, but across the country, that need to be addressed appropriately. I am sure that almost every member of the Committee is committed, as I am, to supporting the rail freight industry and to persuading more freight off the roads and on to the railways. In particular, Network Rail could and should do more to help freight. We hope that every effort will be made to ensure that the freight industry suffers no negative repercussions from Crossrail.
I support the general purpose of the clause—namely, that the ORR shall exercise its powers in a way that facilitates the effective operation of Crossrail services. I take the point that freight is not an issue for the bulk of Crossrail, but at either end of the route there are implications concerning it. Therefore, I want the freight industry to be reassured that there will be no negative impact to its operations. I have tabled the amendment in an attempt to have regard paid to commercial freight requirements. I hope that the Committee looks favourably on it.
Amendment No. 40 is probing. I have already alluded to subsection (1), which provides that the ORR should carry out its functions in a way that facilitates the operation of Crossrail services. Subsection (5) allows the ORR to disregard the provisions of subsection (1), provided that the Secretary of State agrees. Why does the Minister at one stage want the ORR to promote and facilitate the operation of Crossrail while, in subsection (5), allowing it to act in a way that might hinder that? That seems slightly odd. Will he explain exactly why subsection (5) is there and what specific circumstances it is supposed to cover? I look forward to his response.

Susan Kramer: I echo the concerns over the role of freight. The amendment would be a neat way to bring the issue back into the overall conversation and make it clear that there is a significant freight issue in the construction and operation of Crossrail. I say that in part as a Londoner.
London’s major aggregate yards require freight to be able to use some of that track. That would not turn the track into a freight line, but there needs to be access to part of the Crossrail track—for example, if the aggregate depot at Acton is to be available. With all the construction in London that is necessary and ongoing, it would be a devastating blow if that freight access was all but killed before the entire project was developed.

Brian Binley: The Minister knows that considerable concern was expressed by the freight industry about the impact of Crossrail services on line time. There are fears that freight will have diminished time as a result. We had some very sizeable discussions in that respect. I need the Minister’s reassurance, because it seems to me that subsection (5) says that if there is a clash of interests on line time between Crossrail and freight services, the Secretary of State can overrule the ORR and say that Crossrail is a priority and that freight must therefore take another hit. I am not saying that he will say that, but it could happen because of the words
“with the consent of the Secretary of State”.
Am I totally wrong in that belief? Will the Minister reassure me that that is the case?

Peter Soulsby: The hon. Members for Northampton, South and for Wimbledon have drawn attention to the consideration that the Select Committee gave to the issue of freight. Some very real concerns were expressed by the freight industry. We gave them considerable consideration and to some extent we became expert on rail freight as a result.
It was clear from our discussions with the promoters and the representatives of the freight industry that there are real potentials for conflict between freight usage on existing lines and the Crossrail services. At the end of our consideration, we concluded that those were not matters for which we could provide simple solutions. We were reassured that the conversations that were clearly taking place could ultimately lead to a satisfactory solution, but had not done so yet. It was with that in mind that the Select Committee concluded by saying:
“We look to the Committee in the House of Lords to ensure that Access Option and any other remaining issues relating to the freight industry are adequately evaluated.”
That gives a clear signal to the Committee in the House of Lords to return to certain issues and that there are potential conflicts between freight and Crossrail that need to be resolved.
With that in mind and with the clear steer that I hope the Select Committee gave to our equivalent Committee in the Lords, I suggest that although it is tempting to seek to amend the Bill here in Committee and to try to do so in a piecemeal fashion to accommodate the needs of freight, it would be more sensible to recognise that the matter will be considered elsewhere. I hope that the Bill will then come back with the conflicts resolved in a form to which the Commons can give approval at a later stage.

Tom Harris: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Wimbledon that I cannot support his amendment. I draw his and other Members’ attention to my letter of 7 November, copies of which are available in the room and in which I explained in some detail why the railway clauses are needed at this stage to protect the ability to operate sufficient Crossrail services to secure the public benefits of the project.
The amendment would undermine that. To explain, as I did in my letter, I need to set the amendment in the context of what the railway clauses are trying to achieve. By way of background, access to the existing Network Rail network is subject to the approval of the ORR. In reaching decisions, the ORR weighs a range of general duties under section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. Access contracts are then granted for periods of up to 10 years, or longer in exceptional cases. These contracts then give priority in bidding for train paths in the national railway timetabling process. Once granted, access rights can be flexed and motivated under the network code—for example, to facilitate maintenance of the railway—but are normally not rescinded.
The Crossrail project affects the Network Rail network in the construction phase because there will be works on the network itself. Crossrail services will then run on it. The long title of the Bill makes it clear that Crossrail is a transport system running between Maidenhead and Heathrow via central London to Shenfield and Abbey Wood. Through services are not an optional extra, but they are key to securing the public benefits of the Crossrail project. The intention is that Network Rail will continue to own and operate the railway under ORR’s regulation and Crossrail services will share capacity with other operators. This means that the regulation and the role of the ORR are necessarily central to the delivery of the Crossrail project.
Although the ORR currently has many but not all of the necessary powers in the Railways Act 1993 to enable the delivery of Crossrail, there can be no certainty that future decisions would enable Crossrail to be constructed and operated as intended. This presents a problem because, in considering the project in the context of a hybrid Bill, Parliament should be confident that the relative importance that it and the Government place on Crossrail services and that has been the basis for promoting the Bill should be translated into a real train pattern.
Parliament then grants the necessary outline approvals and powers for the Secretary of State, with approval of details as necessary left to other bodies. This approach should apply just as much to access to the railway network as it does to compulsory purchase and planning approval. There is a real, practical issue at stake here: £16 billion cannot be spent without being sure that the necessary construction activity can be undertaken on the network and that a train service will be allowed to operate that delivers the public benefits that justify the investment.
To give the necessary assurance on the delivery of the service, the Bill provides that the ORR will have certain duties in relation to Crossrail that override its existing general duties. However, that will not affect the ORR’s role on safety and fair charging. The Secretary of State will play a part in establishing the overriding duty, notably by specifying the minimum level of Crossrail services. The specification will take into account the relative importance of Crossrail services and the interests of other rail users. That builds on her existing role in which she has a considerable say in the utilisation of the network because she specifies franchised passenger services.
The ORR’s overriding duty and the Secretary of State’s role—which is hers alone and cannot be devolved to the Greater London authority or Transport for London—are strictly limited to Crossrail purposes. They should also be regarded not as setting a precedent. A hybrid Bill for a £16 billion rail project that is dependent on access to the existing network, if not unique, will, I expect, be very rare.
These railway clauses are largely reserve powers. The intention is to use existing rail industry processes where possible. For example, an application was made in July to the ORR by the Secretary of State and Network Rail for approval under the Railways Act 1993 of an access option that would grant access rights for Crossrail services. The ORR’s decision is not expected until the new year. It would be premature to cut back the Bill’s powers before that decision is known. However, that should be in time for consideration of the Bill in the other place, at which point those rail powers could be rescinded, depending on the result of the application for the access agreement.
I turn to the detail of the amendments. Clause 23 deals with the interim period between Royal Assent and Crossrail becoming operational. Its intention is to ensure that Crossrail passenger services—in effect services going through the cross-London tunnel—can use the overground network and be integrated with it. Once operating at the minimum levels for Crossrail passenger services specified by the Secretary of State, the clause should ensure that the ORR does not grant inconsistent access rights that run beyond the start of the prospective principal Crossrail passenger services or conflict with them. That is a sensible advance planning measure to reduce the risk of conflicting access rights being granted that need to be removed once Crossrail services come into operation.
The result of amendment No. 39 would be that while the ORR would receive the Secretary of State’s specification of the minimum level of Crossrail services, that would form only the basis of the overriding duty. The ORR would also have to consider whether commercial freight requirements have been met. There would be little point in having such an overriding duty, over and above the application of the ORR’s general duties.
Although a great deal of work has been done on dovetailing Crossrail services and freight needs, there could ultimately be a conflict. If that arose, it would have the potential to threaten the Crossrail project. As I have already said, if a minimum level of Crossrail service is not accommodated, the public benefits will not be realised that justify the investment in the project. One cannot start construction simply in the hope of gaining the necessary access rights at some indeterminate point in the future. Clause 23(5), which amendment No. 40 would delete, is needed to provide flexibility for the Secretary of State to consent to the ORR not applying its overriding duty in relation to Crossrail services that make use of the tunnel.
In conclusion, although I entirely accept that the needs of freight are important, they have been given careful consideration at the project development stage, in the hybrid Bill process and in the current applications before the ORR. The amendment is a step too far because of the potential damage to the delivery of the Crossrail project. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing it.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s lengthy response to the amendments and to the hon. Member for Leicester, South. I think that there is a general concern about freight and I take the point entirely that the other place should look at the issue. If there is a need to bring back general provisions across the Bill to ensure that freight is protected, it would be appropriately done in a unified, rather than a piecemeal way. However, I think that the Committee has to bear the issue of freight in mind in the passing of the Bill.
It was certainly not the point of the amendment to affect the minimum service required by Crossrail merely to provide a sub-requirement on the ORR with regard to freight, and I think that the Minister understands that. Having listened to the hon. Member for Leicester, South and the Minister, and with the knowledge that the interests of freight will also be looked at in the other place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in clause 23, page 15, line 1, after ‘may’, insert
‘, no later than 6 months after the commencement of commercial services on the Crossrail network,’.
As the Minister rightly said, the clause deals with the interim period between Royal Assent and the commencement of passenger services. Subsection (7) gives the Minister the power to extend the so-called interim period. The implication of such a move, as I understand it, will be to lengthen the term during which the ORR’s independence is restricted by the terms of the clause.
The amendment is designed to put a time limit on the interim period, and hence on the time during which the ORR is required to favour Crossrail in situations where it might otherwise not. Once services are operational, should they continue to have a preferred status at other parts of the network at the expense of other passenger services?
Access contracts are clearly of particular importance during the construction of the railway line. The ORR will be obliged to follow the terms of the Bill and carry out its duties in a manner so as to facilitate Crossrail services. However, such an obligation does not need to be duly extended beyond the completion of the construction phase, and that is why I have proposed putting a time limit of six months on the so-called interim period. That seems to be timely and rational.

Tom Harris: The amendment would affect the Secretary of State’s ability to extend the so-called interim period, as the hon. Gentleman has said. That is the period between Royal Assent and the first use of Crossrail passenger services. In that period, the ORR has an overriding duty in the exercise of its access contract functions to facilitate the operation of the prospective services.
The Secretary of State might need to extend that period. For example, the Crossrail services are expected to be phased in over a year, as was stated when the funding announcement was made in October. For a new railway service of the scale of Crossrail, it would be unwise to attempt to introduce overnight the full service to all destinations. With regard to access planning, it makes sense for the ORR not to grant access rights that would frustrate the phasing in of services over that period.
Once the Crossrail service is fully in operation, it will have been granted the appropriate access rights and Network Rail and the ORR would not then grant conflicting access rights. Therefore, even if extended, the interim period has a finite and useful life because of the protection that the clause affords. Should the Secretary of State need to extend the interim period, my expectation is that she would decide to do so within six months of the commencement of commercial services, as the amendment proposes. My concern is that an arbitrary deadline of six months would not account for the unexpected and might be problematic.
There is, however, quite a lot of sense in the argument that the hon. Member for Wimbledon has put forward. If he is willing to withdraw the amendment, I intend to keep it under advisement.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for those words. He has clearly understood the thrust of the amendment and from where it is coming. I have listened carefully to what he has said. If the interim period needs to be flexible because the phasing in of Crossrail services needs extra protection, that seems entirely appropriate. I look forward to discussing with him, perhaps in the period between the conclusion of the Committee’s proceedings and Report, some way of keeping that issue under review. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Directions specifying matters for purposes of section 23

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in clause 24, page 15, line 36, at end insert—
‘( ) such passenger groups as he considers appropriate.’.
Following a number of amendments that I have proposed today, with which I have so far failed to tempt the Minister, I feel quite strongly about this one in particular. We have looked a number of times at what many people might regard as not necessarily being the fullest provisions for proper consultation. A proper consultation process ought to be incumbent on a Secretary of State when they are making certain provisions and orders.
Clause 24 allows the Government to set up minimum operating levels for principal Crossrail services. Subsection (4) of the clause obliges the Secretary of State to do so, having consulted Transport for London, passenger services providers, and anyone else whom he “considers appropriate”.
I would suggest that we need to include a significant group of people whom the Minister may well consider appropriate, but who are missing from the Bill and who ought to be included and place an absolute obligation on the Secretary of State to consult them. That is the people who will use the service—the passengers themselves. As those who will be profoundly affected by the minimum operating levels for Crossrail, it seems obvious that, if service levels are to be set or altered, passenger groups should be consulted regardless, and not only if the Secretary of State considers that appropriate.
I know that there are a number of excellent regional and national passenger organisations that the Minister will have met in his role as rail Minister; I certainly have in my role as shadow Minister. They include Passenger Focus, London TravelWatch, and various groups in the midlands. Those groups have much to say about the quality and operating levels of services. It would be a gross oversight not to recognise the value of the contribution that they make. To ignore them and not to put an obligation for them to be consulted in the Bill would be a great mistake.

Susan Kramer: I very much support the inclusion of passenger groups as has been proposed in the amendment. In my days on the board of Transport for London, advice from passenger groups was crucial to understanding how to get the service right. It is important particularly at a time when we need to ensure that there is joined-up thinking and that we deliver what is properly integrated and responsive to passengers’ needs. When a sum of about £16 billion is being invested, it seems that not to give those groups the high-priority profile that would be provided by including them in the Bill would be to miss an opportunity. The amendment would show that thinking has changed and that passengers are recognised as part of the system in a railway that, too long, had the reputation of being an arrangement that would work beautifully if people never bothered to get on the trains. That change in thinking that needs to be incorporated.

Tom Harris: I will preface my remarks by pointing out, as I will repeat later on, that there is absolutely no prospect of the Government ignoring passenger groups’ views simply because that obligation is not in the Bill.
However, the clause that the amendment seeks to affect is linked to clause 23. It is an advanced planning measure that enables the Secretary of State, after consulting, to specify minimum operating levels to establish principal Crossrail passenger services from a specified date. Those services will make use, for at least part of their journey, of the new tunnel under central London. That direction, which must be published, sets the basis for the Office of Rail Regulation’s overriding duty under clause 23.
Before the Secretary of State specifies the minimum operating levels, she must consult Transport for London, the provider of any railway passenger service likely to be affected by the direction and any such other persons that she considers appropriate. The Secretary of State must give due consideration to who, if anyone in addition to those specified, needs to be consulted. If she did not do so, she would be open to challenge in the courts. It is likely that rail passenger groups would be included in the consultation.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon has not specified any particular organisation. However, the danger of the amendment is that other groups may start claiming that they, too, need to be specified or included in the long list of consultations and the list could become long and ill-defined.
The amendment is not necessary. The Secretary of State will act as she considers appropriate, taking account of her general policy and the Department for Transport’s general record in relation to passenger group consultations. This is not a bad amendment, but it does not add a great deal to the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Stephen Hammond: I listened carefully to the Minister. Let us examine his logic. He has just said that we should not include in the Bill the most important people, because doing so may bring in a load of other people. If he wanted me to specify passenger groups—if he would accept my amendment and if they were included—I would be happy to ask leave to withdraw it and allow him to bring it back as a Government amendment next week. However, if he is telling me that that creates too wide an opportunity, why is he including passenger services providers in the Bill? The Minister cannot have it both ways, but that is what he is trying to do. He is wriggling, because he does not want to be tempted into accepting one of my excellent amendments this afternoon.

Tom Harris: I should point out that passenger service providers are there: they can be counted and identified and there is no question about who they are. There may be a question about which passenger groups—they are many and diverse— should be included in the list.

Stephen Hammond: I am afraid that the Minister is trying hard but failing to convince.

Mark Field: I very much agree. Would not my hon. Friend agree that he included in his amendment the words “as he considers appropriate” to give the Minister the opportunity to suggest that it may not necessarily be appropriate to include some newfangled or unrepresentative passenger group? I cannot understand why, other than simply to hold the line, the Minister does not accept the amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that he should do so forthwith.

Stephen Hammond: I certainly agree. I cannot see why the Government will not accept the amendment and include in the Bill this requirement to consult, which is sensible. It is important that this group be consulted. I take the Minister’s point, which is that he thinks that any reasonable Secretary of State would consult that group. However, why not put that on the face of the Bill? I have heard no argument not to do so. I am afraid that I would like to test the will of the Committee on this amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Amending pre-commencement access contracts: construction of Crossrail

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in clause 26, page 17, line 19, after ‘State’, insert
‘and such other persons as the Office of Rail Regulation considers appropriate’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 47, in clause 29, page 20, line 15, after ‘State’, insert ‘and other interested parties’.

Stephen Hammond: The wording of the amendment means that we might be about to rehearse the same argument as has just been articulated. Its purpose is to ensure that appropriate consultation and an appropriate consultation process are carried out. In the present context, that should be prior to the adjustment by the Office of Rail Regulation of the pre-commencement access contracts. Clause 26(4) gives the ORR power to require concerned parties to submit proposals on how they should amend such access contracts, and the Opposition welcome that. Giving the parties to agreements the power at least to contribute to the decision-making process of the regulator will greatly improve the chances of effective modifications to such agreements.
Subsection (5) says that the ORR must consult the Secretary of State as part of that process. We welcome that too, especially as it puts the ORR under no particular obligation to abide by the Secretary of State’s directions. The requirement is one of consultation only. However, the consultation procedure ends there, and it seems short-sighted to presume that no one else will be affected at that stage by the changes to pre-commencement access contracts. The amendment is intended to ensure that the ORR is open to the concerns of other appropriate and relevant parties and that it consults them in a relevant and appropriate fashion.

Tom Harris: The amendment would require the ORR to invite representations from parties other than the Secretary of State when it considered that an access contract needed amending if use of the railway facility to which the contract related would be affected by the construction of Crossrail.
The amendment is not strictly necessary, but I accept that it might have some merit, so I would like to consider it with officials in the Department. The ORR does not need authority to consult as widely as it considers appropriate, because nothing in clause 26 prevents it from doing that already. The ORR would in practice need to consult at least the parties to the affected access contracts before it could decide whether and how the contracts needed amending. Subsection (4) enables the ORR to require the parties to propose the directions that should be given. The ORR has established consultation policies and a track record of facilitating a very open process on access matters, so the decision on what is appropriate consultation can be trusted to it. I have explained my position on the amendment. However, if the hon. Gentleman insists on pressing the amendment, I shall have to ask my colleagues to vote against it.

Stephen Hammond: If one is on the Opposition Front Bench for any Committee stage of any Bill, one knows that any minor victory is to be celebrated. This is potentially the second minor victory today in which the Minister has agreed to take back two of my amendments to look at with his officials. I shall probably celebrate with a Martini later this evening. I am therefore delighted to withdraw the amendment and I look forward to talking to the Minister about it in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Amending pre-commencement access contracts: principal Crossrail services

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in clause 27, page 17, line 43, at end insert—
‘( ) Where the Secretary of State makes no objection to the contract, he must indicate who he has consulted in formulating his decision.’.
If the Minister wishes to take this amendment back to his officials, I will be happy to withdraw it. The clause also relates to pre-commencement access contracts, but those that affect the operation of principal Crossrail services, as opposed to those that concern the construction of the Crossrail network itself. It gives the Secretary of State the power to object to any perceived conflict between the specified minimum operating levels of Crossrail set by him and any existing access contracts as identified by the ORR. That is my understanding, at any rate. That effectively puts more power in the hands of Government and the purpose of my amendment is merely to introduce some accountability into the process.
The Secretary of State should consult affected parties before deciding whether to object to the contract identified by the regulator. He should then be happy to indicate exactly whom he has consulted in the formulation of that decision. Does the Minister agree that that puts no particular extra or undue burdens on the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State, whoever it might be at that time, should be happy to indicate whom he or she has consulted in the formulation of that decision?

Tom Harris: I fear the hon. Gentleman might be drinking Martinis on his own tonight. I do not think that I will be able to join him. If I offered him the same concession that I offered previously, he might start spreading the rumour that I am a soft touch. The aim of his amendment is somewhat puzzling. It requires the Secretary of State to indicate whom she has consulted when she makes no objection to an access contract that conflicts with the operation of the principal Crossrail services, but it makes no similar requirement when she does object.
I do not see a requirement to consult being necessary in any case. The ORR is already likely to be in touch with the parties to access contracts and to establish what would prejudice the operation of the principal Crossrail passenger services. The Secretary of State would decide whether she objects to that contract. If she does object, the ORR would be in touch with the affected parties anyway and regulations would provide for the carrying out by the ORR of its functions, which could involve consulting interested persons. If she does not object, I am not clear what use the ORR would have for information on whom, if anyone, she consulted in reaching that decision. At the risk of disappointing the hon. Gentleman, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I know from the Minister’s debating here and in the House that he is not a soft touch. I cannot believe that anyone would think that of him. I have listened carefully to his rationale. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ann Winterton: We now have a repeat performance by Mr. Hammond.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 27, page 18, line 7, leave out subsections (7) to (9).

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 17, in clause 33, page 23, line 22, leave out subsections (6) to (8).

Stephen Hammond: Thank you, Lady Winterton. I do feel a bit like the ITV autumn schedule, I must say.
This is a probing amendment. I seek to delete subsections (7) to (9) of clause 27. The two preceding subsections give the Office of Rail Regulation the power to enforce the decision of the Secretary of State as to the amendment or cancellation of any existing access contracts that are perceived to be in conflict with the Government’s specified minimum operating levels for Crossrail. Subsection (7) enables the Secretary of State to
“make provision in relation to the carrying out by the Office of Rail Regulation of its functions”
as set out in the preceding subsections. That appears to me to be vague, ambiguous and in need of clarification. I hope that my amendment will allow the Minister to clarify exactly why these subsections are relevant and need to be included in the Bill.

Tom Harris: Clause 27 deals with existing access contracts that may affect the operation of the principal Crossrail passenger services. After all, some access contracts that would have such an effect may still be in existence at the time of Royal Assent, and the clause enables them to be modified. Clause 33 also deals with the modification of access contracts. In both cases, where such modification was required, there would need to be an extensive process corresponding broadly to that set out in paragraphs 3 to 6 of schedule 4 to the Railways Act 1993. It is desirable to provide for that by means of secondary legislation, rather than adding further to the Bill. It would be subject to the annulment process in the House.
Amendments Nos. 45 and 17 would delete both provisions that enable secondary legislation to be made. That could result in an unsatisfactory, inflexible position in which existing statutory procedures may not be entirely established or transparent. If there were concerns about provisions in the secondary legislation, there is parliamentary protection, as I have described. I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon is satisfied with that explanation.

Stephen Hammond: As I said, this is a probing amendment. I wanted the Committee to understand why the subsections are necessary and I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Terms of, and amending other contracts because of, Crossrail access contracts

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in clause 28, page 19, line 2, at end insert—
‘( ) Subsection (4) applies only where a compensatory arrangement has been reached, which is enforceable by the Office of Rail Regulation.’.
The amendment is designed to ensure that there is a fair deal for those potentially or actually adversely affected by the terms of clause 28. The clause gives the rail regulator the power either to direct a facility owner to enter into an access contract with a prospective Crossrail passenger service provider or to amend existing access contracts that he may have at the request of the would-be service provider. When doing that, the Office of Rail Regulation is not allowed to make the parties to the affected contract change the amounts payable under that contract. That means that a situation could arise whereby a facility owner is forced to allow a third party far greater access to his facility than before, but without the commensurate financial compensation or reward. In other words, it seems that the power granted under the clause allows the possibility that the facility owner will give something away and make extra provision, yet receive nothing in return.
I grant that subsection (5) gives the ORR the power to review the appropriate access charges, but the key point is that the financial provisions of the contract previously agreed to by the parties cannot necessarily change. When the parties are forced by the ORR to alter the terms of the contract, it is likely that one of them will suffer financially. For that loss, there ought to be a compensation process provided for by the ORR.
Elsewhere in the Bill, compensation is offered to parties adversely affected by powers granted to the Secretary of State and the rail regulator. For me, it follows that those who are forced to amend existing access contracts should also be entitled to the appropriate financial reimbursement and compensation. That strikes me as a just and responsible thing to do.

Tom Harris: Clause 28 deals with two matters. The matter relevant to the amendment is that the clause secures the amendment of any remaining conflicting access rights when they are outside the central tunnel area and are applied for in order to complement Crossrail passenger services. To explain that further, it is possible that a prospective Crossrail operator could not reach an agreement on access rights with a facility owner outside the central tunnel area. They will therefore ask the ORR to direct proceedings under section 17 of the Railways Act 1993. When that procedure is invoked, there may be existing access contracts that conflict with the principal Crossrail passenger service, in which case the ORR needs the power to amend them.
The clause does not permit amendment to access charges without undertaking an access charge review under the 1993 Act. That would be the appropriate rail industry mechanism for ensuring that there is a resetting to the correct access charge payment between the parties affected by the clause.
The amendment would interfere with the ORR’s ability to amend the access charges. That would be a perverse result for the holder of access rights that are being amended as a consequence of Crossrail contracts. If compensation is appropriate, it can be considered separately. There does not need to be a power under the Bill to provide for it. We have given undertakings to the industry during the Select Committee stage of the Bill that we will, wherever possible, use industry mechanisms, which have associated compensation arrangements. That is the preferred solution of the industry. Where we need to adapt those mechanisms, we will seek to agree suitable compensation provisions with the ORR. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Wimbledon enough for him to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened intently to the Minister all afternoon, but I must have missed something in those remarks. I do not understand how the amendment would affect the ORR’s powers of financial compensation. At the moment, the ORR is not allowed to make the parties to the affected contract change the amount payable under that contract. As the Minister says, there is a power to review the appropriate access charges, but I do not understand how the amendment affects that. I think that it would give more protection to railway facility owners. From what the Minister says, I am still not clear how it would diminish that. I would be grateful if he could clarify that point.

Tom Harris: My understanding is that the effect of the amendment would be to interfere with the ORR’s ability to conduct an access charge review, where it is necessary as a consequence of the amendment of access contracts that conflict with the Crossrail service contracts. That is an accepted industry process. Because it introduces an obligation on the ORR, the amendment interferes with its current obligations.

Stephen Hammond: I thought that this was going to be relatively straightforward. Although the amendment may place another obligation upon the ORR, I cannot understand how it conflicts with the obligation that is already there. Will the Minister have another go at trying to reassure me that this is something that detracts rather than is additional? Looking at the wording of my amendment, and from my understanding of the clause, notwithstanding his explanations, that is exactly what the amendment does. It does not detract, but is additional.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is right that it is additional, but I do not see the need for it, given that the industry measures that we are committed to using as part of the process for resolving those conflicts already exist and our undertaking that industry processes will be preferred to putting them on the face of the Bill.

Ann Winterton: We are all running out of energy.

Stephen Hammond: Yes, we are, and it is almost time for everyone to go and have a cup of tea. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear”] I think that that is the most animated that the Labour Members have been, and I do not blame them; this is a pretty technical Bill.
I would like the Minister to say that he will write to me and really clarify that point, and then I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. I am not satisfied entirely that the Minister has demonstrated that the amendment is not necessary.

Tom Harris: Of course, I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. However, now that inspiration has arrived, I shall add to my previous comments. The compensation payable between Network Rail and train operators is dealt with separately to arrangements for compensation under the normal industry processes to which I have referred.

Stephen Hammond: We wish we had the benefit of such inspiration at times such as this.

Tom Harris: It is not going to happen.

Stephen Hammond: Not this year, but maybe soon. I would be grateful to the Minister, not withstanding that last piece of inspiration, if he would commit to writing to me about that, because it is an important amendment and I am not sure that he has really satisfied my doubts about it. I am happy, however, to ask the Minister to write to me, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Four o’clock until Tuesday 27 November at half-past Ten o’clock.